Were you standing there at the time 10? Now while you are able to cite an aramaic version, the oldest MS we have are all greek. So consider that before you try to 'educate' me about school indoctrination. BTW, the lds church does not accept this 'translation' as its official version - when the GA in lds central make it so, then we can evalate it further.
Yes, the text spoke out - thats exegesis - not eisegesis of mormonism. But that is not surprising considering the fact that you wasted a whole post and did not address the facts brought forth by the whole bible.
The only conclusion to be then drawn is that the Bible is not the inerrant book readable by any layman, but one subject to interpretation by those intitiates who have been trained up in its proper interpretation. The average Christian cannot hope to understand it without esoteric knowledge.
LOL, nothing is further from the truth 10. As you state - we have at our fingertips the Greek and Hebrew to which we can go back to, as well as other works by biblical scholars. Nothing esoteric about it.
Do I really need to revisit the many errors Christians have made in mistinterpreting the Bible by removing a passage from the context?
That would be more of a mormon problem 10.
We recognize it when Catholics do it, but why not when the Reformers do it, unless you are a Catholic defending your church? In either case it is self serving.
In either case you are staggering around in the dark.
You see there is one circumstance where Joseph Smith and accurately any human being can be “pure in heart” or “of God”: when their sins are forgiven. Smith claims just this as part of his First Vision experience.
Which version of the 'first vision' 10? there are multiple conflicting version out there. But since we are dealing with mormon mythology - the official version states nothing about his sins being forgiven. Smith has problems with even his own revelation found in D&C 84:22 which states, "For without this [authority of the priesthood] no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
In your citations of the woman caught in adultery (we won't go into whether or not if it belongs there) and teh paralytic - nothing is said about their hearts being made pure - only that Jesus wouldn't condemn on the issue of adultery and his establishment of his authority to forgive sin.
The Bible itself undermines it as a basic doctrine. The Biblical evidence by a vast preponderance is against a Trinitarian God and toward a more complex relationship between God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.
I just love the overconfidence of some of these mormon scholars. The biblical record is very clear - there is only one TRUE God - period. The bible is also very clear, the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. What these profound mormon apologists have to do is either misdefine the Trinity and build a strawman that does not reflect true Christian theology on the matter - or they contort the definition of the word "God" to force it to mean a committee or a council. Again, these astounding mormon apologists ignore the strict monotheism presented in the bible and cherry pick their way around in an attempt to show otherwise. And you charge Christians of 'esoteric' knowledge 10 LOL.
. . . two out of three exist in a glorified, but recognizably human body.
LOL, even this goes against mormon teaching for to be a 'god' one must go through human testing first. Precarnate Jesus and the Holy Spirit have no bodies - thus violating the laws of eternal progression to attain that which heavenly father couldn't. And you insist the Trinity is weak?
Finally, we know from the Bible that even if the Trinity were the true nature of God it is not a necessary precondition to salvation.
Incorrect assumption again. The understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity has everything to do with salvation. It reflects upon the total nature of God - and not some segment of greek mythology smith cobbled together.
Without salvation then Christianity is simply a decent philosophy.
Except that salvation as defined by mormonism is not salvation defined by Christianity. As much as lds want to put lipstick on it, it doesn't change the fact that they are not christian.
First, imagine that all you had of the life and words of the people of Tsingtao were written in German. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsingtao#German_colonial_period_and_Japanese_occupation
Never would you surmise that the original words were spoken in anything, but the Chinese dialect. You're wrong to presuppose that Jesus spoke these words in Hebrew. But, again you make my point: the translation is from some language, most likely Aramaic, into Kione Greek. The Aramaic Bible is a good translation.
Szonian asked how could Jesus return privately to Joseph Smith. I've answered that accurately and conclusively. We have no reason to believe that Jesus departed publicly. The “Men of Galilee” are the eleven remaining Apostles. We have no idea whether the Apostles saw the Ascension with their natural eyes or supernaturally and we also know nothing of the altitude or the height above the ground when Jesus entered the cloud.
We do know that he took his now glorified body with him to Heaven. The Bible is clear on this and emphasizes the fact.
I'll address your additional relevant comments in a moment. But, understand that if you want to believe that the Bible precludes Christ's return to earth to a “special witness” in private then you won't. Despite the fact that the Bible demonstratively states that he left in the very same way.
As regarding the Bible's clear teachings that Christ both can and did forgive sins you deny his ability to do so for Joseph Smith. Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? Yes, if we believe Joseph Smith and the Bible.
Smith's recitations of his First Vision are consistent and accurate. They are not in conflict. You make a choice to not believe them. The same is oft argued by both atheists and Muslims as regards inconsistencies in the Bible. It isn't a valuable argument, nor is it worth the time. It's been covered by LDS apologists quite ably.
That you and others have a limited understanding of the nature of God, godliness and eternity is understandable. You have no mortal experience with such. As a mental experiment imagine your personal immortality. What is that like? Is it a ray going off into eternity starting at your death?
That's not eternal is it? It has a starting point. LDS theology is outstanding on this point. You, SZ, me, everyone are eternal intelligences. We have no beginning and no end. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, please tell me all you know about eternity. I'd like to better understand it.
Please also, explain the Trinity to me. It is possible that I do not understand it at all. If Jesus is God then God has a body. How can Jesus = Heavenly Father = Holy Ghost if the Holy Ghost is just a spirit. Is Heavenly Father just a spirit, too?
As you discuss the Trinity in your original post you devolve into blather. I'd like to understand your position better.
The acceptance of the Trinity is wholly unnecessary to salvation. You're just making it up or perhaps a professor or pastor taught you this. It isn't Biblical.
LDS doctrine is Christian. Trinitarians have no authority to define who or what is Christian, sorry. I'm interested in thoughtful discussions. Don't let this devolve into a series of opinions. We'll get nowhere.